"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>Well put, Mr. August,
>> > jew Holzman whined:
>> > John's handwaving relies on you buying into the assumption that all
>> > women receive the EIC
>>No, it does not. It makes the conservative assumption that only 12 million
>mothers receive EIC, even though Clinton bragged in 1997 that 15 million
>women were already receiving EIC, and that he planned to dramatically
>increase it. If his plan was followed, the actual amount of these "child
>credits" in 2002 was $55 billion, so $42.5 billion is a very conservative
>estimate.
The problem is that your estimate has nothing to do with reality. The
2002 budgeted EITC was $4.37 billion, DOWN from $4.94 billion in 2001.
Even if one presumes that the Bush administration is lowballing this
number (which seems likely given that they seem to be projecting the
future based on the 2001 number), even by 2007 the amount will be less
than $5.4 billion
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=16668122813+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
(line item #125)
So you are off by almost a factor of 10.
>Not only is the additional income earned by working wives
>http://www.geocities.com/fathersfiasco/ only 10% of family incomes,
Such a statement is as ludicrous as most of yours. If a working wife
is making minimum wage, this would require men to average over $50 per
hour (over $100K per year).
>which is barely enough to justify the additional expense of her working and
>the increased child care costs
which has nothing to do with taxes. Stick to the topic.
>but the contribution to the tax base of that family is significantly reduced.
If the family pays more taxes (as it does) then the contribution to
the tax base is increased.
> This is a triple whammy to the White male taxpayer even before the divorce.
Getting divorced is not a wise financial idea. But that remains
irrelevant to the question of how much women pay in taxes.
lojbab